Every once in a while, historical events come to a point where one side is right and one side is wrong. Plain and simple. Therefore it would be a grave disservice--and indeed we would be deluding ourselves--if we were to present "both sides" as if merely upholding a morally righteous perspective alongside a flimsy, factually-challenged, dubious, reactionary and racist perspective achieved some happy middle ground in the name of balance and objectivity. Presenting "both sides" when it came to the Edmund Pettus bridge would cease to provide any sort of satisfactory analysis. No serious person would entertain the notion that "states' rights" was a legitimate cause of the Civil War; that tax cuts lead to robust job growth; that humans are not causing climate change; that vaccines cause autism, and so on and so forth. Cable news networks love to present these controversies as 50-50 debates as if the opposing views are equally rigorous, scholarly, evidence-based, and deserving of our consideration. Little do viewers suspect that one of the sides being presented to the pubic stems from a small group of billionaires who wish to prioritize short-term profits over the public good. It's better to analyze the economic, political, and cultural motives behind why certain misleading perspectives continue to thrive in spite of practically all evidence to the contrary rather than merely present them to a purportedly disinterested and unsuspecting public. Presenting "both sides" doesn't always lead to truth, or an accurate representation of reality. In fact, quite often, it can deliberately distort reality.

Categories

Disclaimer: This is my personal blog. While I do my best to offer reasonable conclusions based on verifiable, peer reviewed evidence, I neither speak for my employers, nor do I require my students to read or agree with the thoughts expressed here. Opinions are my own.